Kejriwal’s recusal arguments go viral, Delhi HC seeks takedown of clips

Videos of Arvind Kejriwal personally arguing before the Delhi High Court in the excise policy case have gone viral across social media, drawing millions of views, sharp political reactions and now a court-backed push to have them removed.

Kejriwal appeared in person before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma earlier this week to argue why she should recuse herself from hearing the case. Clips of his submissions spread rapidly on X, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube, with supporters describing his arguments as calm, precise and unusually direct for a politician speaking inside a courtroom.

Several users shared portions where Kejriwal questioned why adverse remarks had been made against him before his side was heard, why earlier bail orders had contained strong observations later overturned by the Supreme Court, and whether a perception of bias could arise because members of the judge’s family had represented the central government in legal matters.

The clips appeared to connect strongly with the public because Kejriwal was seen not as a politician giving a speech, but as an accused arguing his own case in measured language before the very judge whose recusal he was seeking. Supporters called it a rare and dramatic courtroom moment , while critics accused him of trying to politicise the judiciary.

The Delhi High Court administration has now directed the Delhi Police to remove the videos, saying unauthorised recording and sharing of court proceedings violates court rules. A complaint filed before the registrar general also sought action against several Aam Aadmi Party leaders for circulating the clips.

The controversy has also triggered allegations of selective enforcement . AAP supporters pointed out that clips of arguments made by the Solicitor General against Kejriwal had also circulated widely through accounts aligned with the Bharatiya Janata Party , but did not appear to draw similar objections. The High Court, however, has maintained that its action is based solely on rules prohibiting recording or publication of judicial proceedings without permission.